In an article posted this morning, DSLReports is alleging that Verizon is acting anti-competitively in its delaying approval of Google's phone-based Google Wallet mobile commerce application. The accusation does indeed appear to be based solidly in reality—Verizon's competing Isis mobile wallet system has been made available for a variety of phones on different carriers, in spite of employing the same "secure element" for data storage that has held up the Google Wallet app.

DSLReports points out that this isn't the first time Verizon has kept a competitor's technology stuck in the mud while scrambling to bolster their own apps:

For those who've been around this kind of behavior from Verizon is nothing new. You'll recall that initially Verizon blocked Google Maps from having access to their phones' GPS hardware, in order to give their own navigation software (and its monthly fee) a leg up.

With Google Wallet, Verizon's heartburn stems from the app's required integration with its host device's "secure element," which according to a letter sent from Verizon to the FCC, is a "secure and proprietary piece of hardware" that is "fundamentally separate from the device's basic communications functions or its operating system." The Google Wallet app uses the "secure element" to cryptographically store details about a user, which are used during payment.

Initially, Verizon blocked the installation of the Google Wallet app, though it eventually relented and simply withheld its blessing of the app in the Google Play store. Verizon's point of view is at least somewhat sort-of-kind-of justified: use of the secure element means that the Google Wallet app has extra approval issues and Verizon needs time to study it. The huge problem, though, is that Verizon's Isis app does the same thing—it also uses your device's secure element to store data, and yet it appears to have none of the "integration" issues, and it isn't facing any delays at all with approval. It's good to be the king.

Verizon isn't the only guilty party here, as Isis is actually backed by a consortium of cellular carriers that includes AT&T and T-Mobile. Still, Verizon is the one specifically withholding its approval; the arrival of its own payment app which does the same thing but suffers none of the "integration" issues is circumstantial but pretty damning. Telecom providers like Verizon have a long history of behaving badly; this is just the latest in a long string of "because we can" activities.

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Lee_Ars

This highlights what is, for me, the largest potential failure with Android. Instead of one walled garden, the average user could experience three (one each for Google, the manufacturer, and the carrier). Now, for most of us here, the wall is fairly easily surmounted by installing a different firmware...but for others...

This highlights what is, for me, the largest potential failure with Android. Instead of one walled garden, the average user could experience three (one each for Google, the manufacturer, and the carrier). Now, for most of us here, the wall is fairly easily surmounted by installing a different firmware...but for others...

You don't need different firmware. You can sideload either way. But perhaps not Google Wallet because it needs special access to the phone's hardware.

This highlights what is, for me, the largest potential failure with Android. Instead of one walled garden, the average user could experience three (one each for Google, the manufacturer, and the carrier). Now, for most of us here, the wall is fairly easily surmounted by installing a different firmware...but for others...

But what I don't understand is why anyone who cares about this sort of stuff willingly chooses this carrier-controlled path with Android. If you don't like Verizon having a say in what software you run on your device, then don't buy one of their phones, buy straight from Google instead and bring the phone to AT&T, T-Mobile, or any MVNO. People keep saying they want the carrier to be hands-off and for phone purchasing and software to be a separate matter, conveniently ignoring the fact they can already achieve that, as if they are somehow being forced to walk into a carrier store and buy one of their locked-down devices with a 2-year agreement.

This highlights what is, for me, the largest potential failure with Android. Instead of one walled garden, the average user could experience three (one each for Google, the manufacturer, and the carrier). Now, for most of us here, the wall is fairly easily surmounted by installing a different firmware...but for others...

You don't need different firmware. You can sideload either way. But perhaps not Google Wallet because it needs special access to the phone's hardware.

Oh you can side load it, but the firmware still will not allow it to run (will say that it is incompatible with the device at least on my AT&T GS3). You have to flash the fix in order for it to actually work.

buy straight from Google instead and bring the phone to AT&T, T-Mobile, or any MVNO. People keep saying they want the carrier to be hands-off and for phone purchasing and software to be a separate matter, conveniently ignoring the fact they can already achieve that, as if they are somehow being forced to walk into a carrier store and buy one of their locked-down devices with a 2-year agreement.

The only problem is that (with AT&T anyways), you can't get an LTE phone straight from Google. Only a crippled HSPA+ phone...

Is anybody surprised? Even before smart phones, Verizon was disabling Bluetooth file transfer functionality on their phones so that customers would have to pay extra for Verizon's file transfer service instead of being able to just transfer data like photos directly from the phone to a computer.

This is just one reason why I stayed with AT&T even after Verizon got the iPhone. AT&T has their own problems, of course, but the point remains.

Verizon has always been way too self-centered and wait to moneygrubbing. I gave them thousands of dollars every month for too many years. I finally gave up with them and went with AT&T. I suffer a bit with less coverage but I refuse to use Verizon any longer. For any Verizon users out there, take a look at your Verizon phone. When I was last with Verizon any phone I could purchase had the name Verizon on it in at least five places on the phone. They even had it on the LED screen as if I would ever forget that I was paying Verizon thousands of dollars every month. For them to take up my screen space with their name and not allow me to remove it was the end of it all. Good riddance.

For those who've been around this kind of behavior from Verizon is nothing new. You'll recall that initially Verizon blocked Google Maps from having access to their phones' GPS hardware, in order to give their own navigation software (and its monthly fee) a leg up.

Citation?

They did block GPS in the past, especially on BlackBerry where you could only use the Verizon app. Google Maps was barely out at the time. But I haven't seen that on Android.

Edit: Thinking more about it I think they blocked GPS two different ways. On some devices they crippled the Blackberry maps app, so Google Maps would actually still work if downloaded - on others they actually messed with the GPS api make only VZ Navigator work.

Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, intend for this comment to me seen as flamebait, snark, or a cheap potshot at Android.

That said, as an iOS-exclusive user with pretty much zero regular exposure to Android, I am genuinely surprised to see that carrier approval of apps is still an issue.

You do remember Apple has a bit of a history of rejecting apps that too closely replicate core functionality, right?

For instance, did Google Voice for iPhone ever get out of the "evaluation" stage in which it was stuck? I read something about the new Google Search being delayed because the voice search is too close to Siri.

Whether the carrier does it, or the manufacturer, there's not a lot of difference.

First off what is a "secure element"? I've worked with PC's and smartphones for far too long to not know what this is.

Secondly, Verizon blocking Wallet is like your cable provider blocking universal remote controls. Yes they interact with the product the company is pushing but have no direct effect on your business relationship with them.

I'm glad that Verizon is being "forced" to allow wallet especially given that they should have ZERO input on what goes on to consumer devices.

My last point is this. I've purchased 4 new phones this year. The Rezound, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S3, and Galaxy Note 2. None of which have had any reference to ISIS. Why is Verizon trying to nuke Wallet when they don't even have a competing product yet(outside of Salt Lake and Austin)?

However much it's sad for me to say it, but Android experience is the today's version of yesterday's featurephone.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing has changed. Yes, we get bigger screens and faster hardware. But the roadblock represented by carriers is still there. We still get un-installable carrier apps, we get carrier app stores pushed our way over Google Play, we get carrier control over what goes into the phones and what doesn't. They're the last piece in the way of delivering the experience to the consumer.

Apple is lucky because the iPhone is a cash cow and carriers usually have "iPhone tariffs" which are geerally higher to offset the "loss" they are making by not selling you all of their other crapware.

Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, intend for this comment to me seen as flamebait, snark, or a cheap potshot at Android.

That said, as an iOS-exclusive user with pretty much zero regular exposure to Android, I am genuinely surprised to see that carrier approval of apps is still an issue.

This is the first time I have run across it myself. I am aware of no other app that is currently blocked solely by the carriers (not saying there aren't...just not aware of any). It is blatantly anti-competitive since there is no reason for it to be disallowed (and works just fine once you jump through the hoops) other than fear of having to compete with a Google product.

However much it's sad for me to say it, but Android experience is the today's version of yesterday's featurephone.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing has changed. Yes, we get bigger screens and faster hardware. But the roadblock represented by carriers is still there. We still get un-installable carrier apps, we get carrier app stores pushed our way over Google Play, we get carrier control over what goes into the phones and what doesn't. They're the last piece in the way of delivering the experience to the consumer.

Apple is lucky because the iPhone is a cash cow and carriers usually have "iPhone tariffs" which are geerally higher to offset the "loss" they are making by not selling you all of their other crapware.

I am genuinely surprised to see that carrier approval of apps is still an issue.

Are there not carried based restrictions on FaceTime over 3G on certain carriers in the iOS side of the house?

Oh totally, but I get the carriers restricting the use of the network. Just like I get them restricting tethering functionality unless you pay extra for it. I don't like it, I oppose their stances on both of those, I think we need the strongest-possible net neutrality rules to prevent it, but I get it. But the carriers can't tell Apple what apps can and can not go in the App Store, and I imagine there'd be holy hell if they tried.

Boskone wrote:

You do remember Apple has a bit of a history of rejecting apps that too closely replicate core functionality, right?

For instance, did Google Voice for iPhone ever get out of the "evaluation" stage in which it was stuck? I read something about the new Google Search being delayed because the voice search is too close to Siri.

Whether the carrier does it, or the manufacturer, there's not a lot of difference.

I didn't realize that Android apps could be rejected by the carriers, who really have nothing to do with the distribution of apps themselves. Apple reserves the right to reject/remove apps from store for their devices - I get that. Their store, their rules. So does Google, right? They just exercise that a lot less. I could even understand if the manufacturers reserved the right to restrict app installations (which I'm guessing they can do, via firmware/OS update restrictions). I don't always like that Apple does it, but again, as with the carrier blockade of certain uses of the network, I get it.

But I was completely unaware that Android apps could be vetoed for distribution and installation by the carriers. If Verizon tried to tell Apple that Angry Birds 7 couldn't be distributed via the App Store for my iPhone, I imagine Apple would use some unkind words to respond to that.

My Verizon Nexus which has Google Wallet blocked from downloading? (it is filtered from showing on Google Play)

There is Square Wallet. Some Visa QIWI Wallet (seems Visa bought the company).

Google Wallet has been out for awhile and is working on many devices. Isis is not even compatible with Galaxy Nexus nor Nexus 7.

Nexus, sure avoids the bloatware like VZapps like the S3 has (VZ Navigator was useful until android 2.0 was out with Google Maps. But they still push it. Which costs a subscription), but they still are blocking where they can.

Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, intend for this comment to me seen as flamebait, snark, or a cheap potshot at Android.

That said, as an iOS-exclusive user with pretty much zero regular exposure to Android, I am genuinely surprised to see that carrier approval of apps is still an issue.

This is the first time I have run across it myself. I am aware of no other app that is currently blocked solely by the carriers (not saying there aren't...just not aware of any). It is blatantly anti-competitive since there is no reason for it to be disallowed (and works just fine once you jump through the hoops) other than fear of having to compete with a Google product.

Verizon and others had blocked early tether apps. Not all of them oddly.Verizon anyway has to offer tether on any new data plan now due to the FCC deal. Does not stop AT&T tho.

I didn't realize that Android apps could be rejected by the carriers, who really have nothing to do with the distribution of apps themselves. Apple reserves the right to reject/remove apps from store for their devices - I get that. Their store, their rules. So does Google, right? They just exercise that a lot less. I could even understand if the manufacturers reserved the right to restrict app installations (which I'm guessing they can do, via firmware/OS update restrictions). I don't always like that Apple does it, but again, as with the carrier blockade of certain uses of the network, I get it.

The carriers are one of the cooks in the Android kitchen (if you use the carrier firmware) so they can do pretty much whatever they want. In this case, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon just decided not to enable SmartMX in their ROMs which is what Google Wallet uses for security and, voila, no Google Wallet.

Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, intend for this comment to me seen as flamebait, snark, or a cheap potshot at Android.

That said, as an iOS-exclusive user with pretty much zero regular exposure to Android, I am genuinely surprised to see that carrier approval of apps is still an issue.

This is the first time I have run across it myself. I am aware of no other app that is currently blocked solely by the carriers (not saying there aren't...just not aware of any). It is blatantly anti-competitive since there is no reason for it to be disallowed (and works just fine once you jump through the hoops) other than fear of having to compete with a Google product.

Verizon and others had blocked early tether apps. Not all of them oddly.Verizon anyway has to offer tether on any new data plan now due to the FCC deal. Does not stop AT&T tho.

I completely forgot about that! So this is the second time I have run afoul of a carrier block. That one was very easy to fix via simple side-loading, though; this time around, they took the extra step of making their firmware incompatible.

Verizon should be shuttered permanently for all the anti-competitive bullshit it pulls. Customers are being hurt by being given only Isis as an option. Verizon might not be charging to use Isis right now, but if Verizon is ever legally allowed to block competition, it will charge you $30 per month for the "privilege" just to have Isis on YOUR phone! We know Verizon Wireless' modus operandi!

My Verizon Nexus which has Google Wallet blocked from downloading? (it is filtered from showing on Google Play)

There is Square Wallet. Some Visa QIWI Wallet (seems Visa bought the company).

Google Wallet has been out for awhile and is working on many devices. Isis is not even compatible with Galaxy Nexus nor Nexus 7.

Nexus, sure avoids the bloatware like VZapps like the S3 has (VZ Navigator was useful until android 2.0 was out with Google Maps. But they still push it. Which costs a subscription), but they still are blocking where they can.

There's a reason the Nexus 4 isn't on Verizon. I don't think Google envisions the Nexus 7 as a wallet (for one it didn't have a cellular connection until recently)

DoomHamster wrote:

AaronA wrote:

I didn't realize that Android apps could be rejected by the carriers, who really have nothing to do with the distribution of apps themselves. Apple reserves the right to reject/remove apps from store for their devices - I get that. Their store, their rules. So does Google, right? They just exercise that a lot less. I could even understand if the manufacturers reserved the right to restrict app installations (which I'm guessing they can do, via firmware/OS update restrictions). I don't always like that Apple does it, but again, as with the carrier blockade of certain uses of the network, I get it.

The carriers are one of the cooks in the Android kitchen (if you use the carrier firmware) so they can do pretty much whatever they want. In this case, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon just decided not to enable SmartMX in their ROMs which is what Google Wallet uses for security and, voila, no Google Wallet.

Edit: spelling.

Except Google Wallet works on phones bought from all the above - some even without working around the blocks making the apk hard to get.

But what I don't understand is why anyone who cares about this sort of stuff willingly chooses this carrier-controlled path with Android. If you don't like Verizon having a say in what software you run on your device, then don't buy one of their phones, buy straight from Google instead and bring the phone to AT&T, T-Mobile, or any MVNO. People keep saying they want the carrier to be hands-off and for phone purchasing and software to be a separate matter, conveniently ignoring the fact they can already achieve that, as if they are somehow being forced to walk into a carrier store and buy one of their locked-down devices with a 2-year agreement.

Because the carriers lease you a phone, and charge you for it whether you bring your own or not.

But what I don't understand is why anyone who cares about this sort of stuff willingly chooses this carrier-controlled path with Android. If you don't like Verizon having a say in what software you run on your device, then don't buy one of their phones, buy straight from Google instead and bring the phone to AT&T, T-Mobile, or any MVNO. People keep saying they want the carrier to be hands-off and for phone purchasing and software to be a separate matter, conveniently ignoring the fact they can already achieve that, as if they are somehow being forced to walk into a carrier store and buy one of their locked-down devices with a 2-year agreement.

Because the carriers lease you a phone, and charge you for it whether you bring your own or not.

AT&T, Verizon and Sprint might. But T-Mobile charges you less if you BYOD. And the MVNOs are cheaper anyway.

Its been this way for over a year. Since the prior nexus phone came out, Verizon has been blocking Google Wallet, even in the 700mhz LTE bands where they are obligated to allow any legal application or device.

My first smartphone was a Verizon Omnia (Windows Mobile). As far as I recall, location apps (Google Maps) weren't blocked but they could not access the GPS hardware on the phone. You had to subscribe to VZ Navigator to gain access to it ($10 per month then).

In a left-handed way, VZW did me a favor since the only other resolution was to learn how to flash custom ROMs, which I did. Regardless of the OS, unlocking/jailbreaking/rooting whatever you have opens up many other possibilities if you are willing to take ownership of your device.

Since i've been running custom ROMs for years, I can't say i'm capable of getting too angry about this one on a personal level, but it definitely sucks on principal.

Printing724 hit the nail on the head, if this encourages people to go and customize their phones a bit more - I think that's a good thing. (Note, I still vehemently disagree with what they did though..... i just hope that there is at least a tiny silver lining)

But what I don't understand is why anyone who cares about this sort of stuff willingly chooses this carrier-controlled path with Android. If you don't like Verizon having a say in what software you run on your device, then don't buy one of their phones, buy straight from Google instead and bring the phone to AT&T, T-Mobile, or any MVNO. People keep saying they want the carrier to be hands-off and for phone purchasing and software to be a separate matter, conveniently ignoring the fact they can already achieve that, as if they are somehow being forced to walk into a carrier store and buy one of their locked-down devices with a 2-year agreement.

Because the carriers lease you a phone, and charge you for it whether you bring your own or not.

AT&T, Verizon and Sprint might. But T-Mobile charges you less if you BYOD. And the MVNOs are cheaper anyway.

T-Mobile's "bring your own" discount only fixes half of the problem. Yes, you're no longer paying T-Mobile's cost of providing you a phone. But the full retail price of the phone is padded because of the low volume of device-only sales.

Take a Samsung phone that you can buy contract-free for $549 or get for $199 on contract. T-Mobile only pays Samsung somewhere around $450 for that phone. So you're still paying an added penalty for bringing your own device--it's just moved from the carrier to the phone. You're paying $350 plus tax more up front and only saving $240 over the two-year life of the contract. From a time value of money perspective, it's an awful idea. It takes four years or more to break even on that phone--something that most people won't do.

Until all US carriers decouple the device from the rate plans and phone manufacturers set a transparent price for all customers, bringing your own phone isn't a real alternative unless you're willing to pay more for the privilege.